(09-10-2019, 06:24 PM)Klaus Wrote: Nothing you outlined explains why FF lenses are reacting worse to the procedure than lenses of a smaller format.The higher sampling rate explains it already. So yes, your opinion of "dismal borders for FF lenses" is what I like to counter.
USM has the inverse effect on the numbers as an AA filter - no more, no less.
USM does, of course, boost the center because the center is always better - and it does so regardless of the image format.
It still doesn't explain why, on average, FF lenses are less receptive to USM at the borders than smaller format lenses e.g. the MFT tests have roughly the same pixel density as the EOS 5Ds R tests.
To throw you a breadcrumb - of course, if there was a MFT sensor with the same output as a EOS 5Ds R, the border results would tank massively compared to the center as well.
That just happens if you throw more and more sensor resolution at lenses that don't improve as fast as sensors do.
Megapixels simply follow the rule of about diminishing return of investment. So the different formats have different reasonable megapixel peaks.
So if you'd like to correct me, it's not about the lenses being crappy, it's about throwing too many megapixels at them.
Where this "reasonable" peak resides is subject to debate, of course. But for FF it is not 4x as high as for MFT, it is less than that.
This is all no news anyway. Medium format lenses are typically less sharp than full format lenses as well.
It's also the reason why smartphone images aren't quite as terrible as you might expect just from the sensor format and those tiny lenses.
Back to an earlier point in the discussion. I wrote this:
Quote:I doubt that for 3 reasons.Did you check the simulated MTF charts from Canon for the RF 24-105mm f4 vs the RF 24-240mm?
- The center resolution for the lens seems pretty ok wide open. So you will get more "effective resolution" on 30mp on your subject for sure, it is not like 30mp is too taxing.
- The Canon RF 24-105 f4 24mm Canon MTF chart is not that different from this 24-240mm lens, and that 24-105mm lens did a very good job when it comes to image resolution, according to some reviewer based in Australia.
- The charts for the Olympus lens are for.... f4 on MFT. That is equivalent to f8 on FF. The charts for the Canon lens are for f4 on 24mm, and f6.3 on 240mm.
And did you look at your own MTF charts of the Oly 12-100mm f4 and RF 24-105mm f4?
Where are those "dismal borders"? Yes, the 24-105mm has less reach. But yes, it has a bigger aperture (f4 vs f8 equivalent).